[BBR] Boolberry: Privacy and Security - Guaranteed Since 2014

[jl777]

TY, Dr!

This makes a lot of sense

Are you thinking about using multisig?

Yes, i'm thinking about this, but it's pretty questionable if it really usable ? Bytecoin implemented it, and seems that didn't get much attention or usage.

What do you think ?

I think its usable, but no rush. Maybe many months before needed, because supernet will give access to regular multisig. I think jl777 said it's only 1% fee in his paper, so not much of an issue yet.

Does Bytecoin have non-ring signature multisig? Maybe ring signature multisig would be possible for supernet?

It's important

what can it be used for, can multisig with ring signatures work?

Maybe using shared secret is a good compromise. It wont be as flexible as multisig, but it does allow the basic function of M of N to unlock. I coded a generic M of N (up to 254) which allows fragmenting anything into N pieces and any M (or more) reconstructs.

I think CZ could use this to make something pretty quickly. PM me if you need more info

James

[1714806683]

1714806683

[1714806683]

1714806683

[1714806683]

1714806683

[Pyrrhic]

Most important case is dispute-resolution for marketplaces. If you have a transaction that occurs where there is no dispute the buyer and seller can agree to release the proceeds to the seller. If they disagree a mediator can decide (2-of-3).

Another is a web wallet where both you and a central server have one key required to spend. Your coins are safe from both the server being hacked and your own computer being hacked. A third key can also be kept offline (held by you), which gives you access to your coins if the server disappears, but wouldn't be needed for routine transactions. Similar things can be done with two factor authentication. Again this would be 2-of-3.

I agree with "not a rush" but important for trying to build a larger economy. Right now none of these coins is use for anything but speculation.

Yes, thank you for that. more, what can ring signature multisig provide that multigateway/standard multisig cannot?

MGW uses multisig and it is critical for distributing the gateway function

does this mean multisig will be available for anyone to use in the supernet through multigateway, or that multisig is needed for integrating with supernet?

no fees will be greater than 0.1%, actually 1/1024 other than for gambling stuff. That could be at the 1% level

thank you for correction, lots of reading still to do






I made a few wallpapers, please let me know if this is welcomed?

Here is a preview. low quality for upload to show only, sorry. hi quality in mega file:

https://i.imgur.com/aCMhRls.jpg

Here is a mega link if you would like, it's only 5 wallpapers in a 7zip file (pictures found on internet). 3 are 1920x1080, 2 are 1600x900 Download if you would like, or feel you can trust. perhaps someone trusted can verify? :

https://mega.co.nz/#!mlUlzKjT!zpdq3GxbE0CJubleveTc6WXGLQ0S1p1TDVmdCX7Dt1M


enjoy!

[smooth]

Most important case is dispute-resolution for marketplaces. If you have a transaction that occurs where there is no dispute the buyer and seller can agree to release the proceeds to the seller. If they disagree a mediator can decide (2-of-3).

Another is a web wallet where both you and a central server have one key required to spend. Your coins are safe from both the server being hacked and your own computer being hacked. A third key can also be kept offline (held by you), which gives you access to your coins if the server disappears, but wouldn't be needed for routine transactions. Similar things can be done with two factor authentication. Again this would be 2-of-3.

I agree with "not a rush" but important for trying to build a larger economy. Right now none of these coins is use for anything but speculation.

Yes, thank you for that. more, what can ring signature multisig provide that multigateway/standard multisig cannot?

It is simply the same thing as regular ring sigs, except applied to multisig transactions. Without ring sigs, the source of funds can be traced backward in the blockchain and the use of funds (both the fact of them having been spent and where they go) can be traced forward. So for example if you are using a web-based wallet or some other wallet with (zero mix) multisig-based 2FA, all of your payments would be traceable.

[Pyrrhic]

Most important case is dispute-resolution for marketplaces. If you have a transaction that occurs where there is no dispute the buyer and seller can agree to release the proceeds to the seller. If they disagree a mediator can decide (2-of-3).

Another is a web wallet where both you and a central server have one key required to spend. Your coins are safe from both the server being hacked and your own computer being hacked. A third key can also be kept offline (held by you), which gives you access to your coins if the server disappears, but wouldn't be needed for routine transactions. Similar things can be done with two factor authentication. Again this would be 2-of-3.

I agree with "not a rush" but important for trying to build a larger economy. Right now none of these coins is use for anything but speculation.

Yes, thank you for that. more, what can ring signature multisig provide that multigateway/standard multisig cannot?

It is simply the same thing as regular ring sigs, except applied to multisig transactions. Without ring sigs, the source of funds can be traced backward in the blockchain and the use of funds (both the fact of them having been spent and where they go) can be traced forward. So for example if you are using a web-based wallet or some other wallet with (zero mix) multisig-based 2FA, all of your payments would be traceable.

can this be remedied by just sending any funds to be spent to be in a multisig to a new wallet with a mandatory mixin flag, then to one more new wallet, no flag, so that will allow non-ring signature multisig to be created? then, when spent and 2fa is authenticated, the funds go to the chosen wallet owned by receiver with the mandatory mixin flagged. then to the final destination from there. then, the funding is untraceable, no? uses more wallets, and tx's, but does it work? this would use 3 wallets on the sender, and 2 for the receiver.

what can be changed in the protocol to make a ring signature multisig?

is this a good description of what can be used here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2012/289.pdf

[smooth]

Most important case is dispute-resolution for marketplaces. If you have a transaction that occurs where there is no dispute the buyer and seller can agree to release the proceeds to the seller. If they disagree a mediator can decide (2-of-3).

Another is a web wallet where both you and a central server have one key required to spend. Your coins are safe from both the server being hacked and your own computer being hacked. A third key can also be kept offline (held by you), which gives you access to your coins if the server disappears, but wouldn't be needed for routine transactions. Similar things can be done with two factor authentication. Again this would be 2-of-3.

I agree with "not a rush" but important for trying to build a larger economy. Right now none of these coins is use for anything but speculation.

Yes, thank you for that. more, what can ring signature multisig provide that multigateway/standard multisig cannot?

It is simply the same thing as regular ring sigs, except applied to multisig transactions. Without ring sigs, the source of funds can be traced backward in the blockchain and the use of funds (both the fact of them having been spent and where they go) can be traced forward. So for example if you are using a web-based wallet or some other wallet with (zero mix) multisig-based 2FA, all of your payments would be traceable.

can this be remedied by just sending any funds to be spent to be in a multisig to a new wallet with a mandatory mixin flag, then to one more new wallet, no flag, so that will allow non-ring signature multisig to be created?

Partially, and in fact I suggested this exact work-around. But the fact of the funds having been spent is still visible, and the additional steps will slow down transactions and increase transaction costs. The latter is not really a big deal for marketplace use but it is bad for a 2FA wallet.

what can be changed in the protocol to make a ring signature multisig?

Apparently it is possible but the details need to be worked out. I don't have an answer on how to fix it, and it isn't something I've worked on at all. I'm just going by what was said on the Bytecoin technical thread (and possible the CN forum if I didn't imagine that part).

[Pyrrhic]

Partially, and in fact I suggested this exact work-around. But the fact of the funds having been spent is still visible, and the additional steps will slow down transactions and increase transaction costs. The latter is not really a big deal for marketplace use but it is bad for a 2FA wallet.

how can it be determined if funds are spent or not? would this be local to multisig transactions only?

Apparently it is possible but the details need to be worked out. I don't have an answer on how to fix it, and it isn't something I've worked on at all. I'm just going by what was said on the Bytecoin technical thread (and possible the CN forum if I didn't imagine that part).

will look at that thread, thank you!

[smooth]

Partially, and in fact I suggested this exact work-around. But the fact of the funds having been spent is still visible, and the additional steps will slow down transactions and increase transaction costs. The latter is not really a big deal for marketplace use but it is bad for a 2FA wallet.

how can it be determined if funds are spent or not? would this be local to multisig transactions only?

The spending of the multisig output is the point at which the funds become spent by the group and respendable by the new owner. It makes no sense to release the multisig early because then whatever benefit is being provided by the multisig (2FA, dispute resolution, etc.) has been lost.

Normally with ring signatures the fact that a transaction output is used by another tranasction does not mean that the output has been spent, only that it has been possibly-spent. The new transaction may actually be spending a different output but using that one as a mixin. But without the ability to spend a multisig with ring signatures, you lose this measure of privacy.

[Pyrrhic]

The spending of the multisig output is the point at which the funds become spent by the group and respendable by the new owner.

how to determine that someone has spent a transaction? apart from a transaction itself being spend, is it possible to determine if a transaction was spent by a specific address viewing only the blockchain? or can it only be understood that the tx has not been respent yet, which can require the forced mixin?

aside, can the chain be parsed in order to determine only that a transaction has been spent, when another transaction attempting to mixin with it is completed. if someone mixed with a previous multisig tx, is it possible to determine that that multisig tx was spent, ie: invalid for mixing?

It makes no sense to release the multisig early because then whatever benefit is being provided by the multisig (2FA, dispute resolution, etc.) has been lost.

can you expand this please? i dont understand

Normally with ring signatures the fact that a transaction output is used by another tranasction does not mean that the output has been spent, only that it has been [/i]possibly-spent[/i]. The new transaction may actually be spending a different output but using that one as a mixin. But without the ability to spend a multisig with ring signatures, you lose this measure of privacy.

then how can the chain be parsed to determine that a tx has been spent, other than that a new output has been formed from the previous input which would mean that the original multisig took place?

[tljenson]

Talking of being to centralized, I was solo mining but my equipment is too slow. I now mining on this pool which only has 3 miners including myself. It's only putting out 4.66 MH/sec. It could use some more help, and hopefully help take some miners away from of the more centralized pools. Here is the link.

http://boolberry.extremepool.org//#

I love this coin!

[mbk]

MBK's Boolberry Mining Pool

I've spend a lot of time optimizing OpenCL miner so later I looked at how pools work too. Clintar fixed the problems so pools work much better now if updated. Anyway I have some ideas how to tune the pool to get more blocks on the same hardware. I tested it for a week with my GPU farm, rented a decent server and now you can give my pool a try.

http://bbr.mbkpool.info

Usage with my OpenCL miner:
Windows

Code:

minerd.exe -a wildkeccak_ocl -o stratum+tcp://bbr.mbkpool.info:7777 -u YOUR_WALLET_ADDRESS -p x -k http://bbr.mbkpool.info/scratchpad.bin -l scratchpad.bin 

Linux

Code:

minerd -a wildkeccak_ocl -o stratum+tcp://bbr.mbkpool.info:7777 -u YOUR_WALLET_ADDRESS -p x -k http://bbr.mbkpool.info/scratchpad.bin -l ~/scratchpad.bin 

Changes:

• 100ms boolbd daemon polling interval - to get new blocks as soon as possible (later I could make it even less)
  
• 1 minute difficulty targeting - it's better to make shares rarer and more valuable in current miner implementation (starting diff is 150 millions on port 9999 for multi-GPUs)

Options to try:
-i x (intensity) - default value is 18, try lower values if it doesn't lower your hashrate as it will improve efficiency (we cannot exit GPU calculation cycle so the shorter cycle means less time we lose when new block arrives)

I'm not talking about large improvement but the miners should be close to 100% efficiency. You can try it and make decision yourself. Look at miner's output and compare. In the real example below the miner calculates 1112 kh/s and every hash works to make a share on the pool.

Code:

[2014-09-10 21:56:40.175] eff: 100% @ 1112 kh/s, accepted: 1251/1251 (100.00%), 1101 kh/s at diff 76695845 (yay!!!)

[clintar]

MBK's Boolberry Mining Pool

I've spend a lot of time optimizing OpenCL miner so later I looked at how pools work too. Clintar fixed the problems so pools work much better now if updated. Anyway I have some ideas how to tune the pool to get more blocks on the same hardware. I tested it for a week with my GPU farm, rented a decent server and now you can give my pool a try.

http://bbr.mbkpool.info

Usage with my OpenCL miner:
Windows

Code:

minerd.exe -a wildkeccak_ocl -o stratum+tcp://bbr.mbkpool.info:7777 -u YOUR_WALLET_ADDRESS -p x -k http://bbr.mbkpool.info/scratchpad.bin -l scratchpad.bin 

Linux

Code:

minerd -a wildkeccak_ocl -o stratum+tcp://bbr.mbkpool.info:7777 -u YOUR_WALLET_ADDRESS -p x -k http://bbr.mbkpool.info/scratchpad.bin -l ~/scratchpad.bin 

Changes:

• 100ms boolbd daemon polling interval - to get new blocks as soon as possible (later I could make it even less)
  
• 1 minute difficulty targeting - it's better to make shares rarer and more valuable in current miner implementation (starting diff is 150 millions on port 9999 for multi-GPUs)

Options to try:
-i x (intensity) - default value is 18, try lower values if it doesn't lower your hashrate as it will improve efficiency (we cannot exit GPU calculation cycle so the shorter cycle means less time we lose when new block arrives)

I'm not talking about large improvement but the miners should be close to 100% efficiency. You can try it and make decision yourself. Look at miner's output and compare. In the real example below the miner calculates 1112 kh/s and every hash works to make a share on the pool.

Code:

[2014-09-10 21:56:40.175] eff: 100% @ 1112 kh/s, accepted: 1251/1251 (100.00%), 1101 kh/s at diff 76695845 (yay!!!)

Nice, looks good. Sounds like I should change some diffs, then, too .

[Hotmetal]

Nice, looks good. Sounds like I should change some diffs, then, too .

http://cncoin.farm/

Network
 Hash Rate: 7.29 GH/sec
 Block Found: 2 minutes ago

Our Pool
 Hash Rate: 3.51 GH/sec
 Block Found: 2 minutes ago

Right now BBR is getting itself into a bad situation for multiple reasons.. Besides the 51% attack, a DDOS attack @ http://cncoin.farm/ and mining BBR becomes *extremely* profitable for an attacker.

[klee]

Any EU pools? Apologies but to busy to check...

[AnonX#1]

Any EU pools? Apologies but to busy to check...

http://bbr.poolto.be/

[klee]

Any EU pools? Apologies but to busy to check...

http://bbr.poolto.be/

thanks mate

[mbk]

Boolberry OpenCL solo miner update
Synced to the main branch
https://github.com/mbkuperman/boolberry-opencl

Windows x64 binary
https://github.com/mbkuperman/boolberry-opencl/releases

[clintar]

Nice, looks good. Sounds like I should change some diffs, then, too .

http://cncoin.farm/

Network
 Hash Rate: 7.29 GH/sec
 Block Found: 2 minutes ago

Our Pool
 Hash Rate: 3.51 GH/sec
 Block Found: 2 minutes ago

Right now BBR is getting itself into a bad situation for multiple reasons.. Besides the 51% attack, a DDOS attack @ http://cncoin.farm/ and mining BBR becomes *extremely* profitable for an attacker.

I was wondering what I can do about that. Probably need miners to fail-over at least. If pools had standard ports, I was wondering if a round-robin dns with all of them listed would work out ok. Otherwise I guess I can set a really high fee to get people to switch when it's so high, but I'd sure look greedy doing that with so much of the network.

[Hotmetal]

Nice, looks good. Sounds like I should change some diffs, then, too .

http://cncoin.farm/

Network
 Hash Rate: 7.29 GH/sec
 Block Found: 2 minutes ago

Our Pool
 Hash Rate: 3.51 GH/sec
 Block Found: 2 minutes ago

Right now BBR is getting itself into a bad situation for multiple reasons.. Besides the 51% attack, a DDOS attack @ http://cncoin.farm/ and mining BBR becomes *extremely* profitable for an attacker.

I was wondering what I can do about that. Probably need miners to fail-over at least. If pools had standard ports, I was wondering if a round-robin dns with all of them listed would work out ok. Otherwise I guess I can set a really high fee to get people to switch when it's so high, but I'd sure look greedy doing that with so much of the network.

Some type of round robin would actually work out really well. Then all pool owners can apply to be apart of the pool. There are a lot of reasons this is a good way of doing it.
The down side to doing it would be how would a miner see his hashrate?

[clintar]

Nice, looks good. Sounds like I should change some diffs, then, too .

http://cncoin.farm/

Network
 Hash Rate: 7.29 GH/sec
 Block Found: 2 minutes ago

Our Pool
 Hash Rate: 3.51 GH/sec
 Block Found: 2 minutes ago

Right now BBR is getting itself into a bad situation for multiple reasons.. Besides the 51% attack, a DDOS attack @ http://cncoin.farm/ and mining BBR becomes *extremely* profitable for an attacker.

I was wondering what I can do about that. Probably need miners to fail-over at least. If pools had standard ports, I was wondering if a round-robin dns with all of them listed would work out ok. Otherwise I guess I can set a really high fee to get people to switch when it's so high, but I'd sure look greedy doing that with so much of the network.

Some type of round robin would actually work out really well. Then all pool owners can apply to be apart of the pool. There are a lot of reasons this is a good way of doing it.
The down side to doing it would be how would a miner see his hashrate?

We could have a site that queries all in the list for your address on the api port.

Edit: I've set up a SRV record as an example. _bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm that has all the pools listed on the first page that have dns names for connecting. That is one issue with this approach. All pools would have to have a name and not an IP for a SRV record to work. You can see what it returns with

Code:

dig SRV _bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm

in linux, or

Code:

nslookup -type=all _bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm

in windows.
example output:

Code:

;; ANSWER SECTION:
_bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm. 7199   IN      SRV     10 0 11007 bbr.poolto.be.
_bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm. 7199   IN      SRV     0 0 7777 bbr.cncoin.farm.
_bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm. 7199   IN      SRV     0 0 1111 mine.bbr.unipool.pro.
_bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm. 7199   IN      SRV     0 0 7777 boolberry.extremepool.org.

Notice it gives a port. It has a priority that I have set the non-us pool to a higher number to give it less priority. Could do the opposite with a _bb._tcp.non-us or _bb._tcp.eu or whatever, even separate lists for cpu/gpu ports. Obviously, it should be managed by core boolberry team or at least not a pool operator, and then miner would have to use something like libsrv (first google hit I saw) to query this record. We could even have a complimentary SRV record to determine API port of these servers I guess. What do you think?


Reference I used for SRV records here: http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch8/srv.html

[Hotmetal]

We could have a site that queries all in the list for your address on the api port.

Edit: I've set up a SRV record as an example. _bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm that has all the pools listed on the first page that have dns names for connecting. That is one issue with this approach. All pools would have to have a name and not an IP for a SRV record to work. You can see what it returns with

Code:

dig SRV _bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm

in linux, or

Code:

nslookup -type=all _bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm

in windows.
example output:

Code:

;; ANSWER SECTION:
_bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm. 7199   IN      SRV     10 0 11007 bbr.poolto.be.
_bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm. 7199   IN      SRV     0 0 7777 bbr.cncoin.farm.
_bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm. 7199   IN      SRV     0 0 1111 mine.bbr.unipool.pro.
_bb._tcp.us.cncoin.farm. 7199   IN      SRV     0 0 7777 boolberry.extremepool.org.

Notice it gives a port. It has a priority that I have set the non-us pool to a higher number to give it less priority. Could do the opposite with a _bb._tcp.non-us or _bb._tcp.eu or whatever, even separate lists for cpu/gpu ports. Obviously, it should be managed by core boolberry team or at least not a pool operator, and then miner would have to use something like libsrv (first google hit I saw) to query this record. We could even have a complimentary SRV record to determine API port of these servers I guess. What do you think?

Reference I used for SRV records here: http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch8/srv.html

Quite an elegant solution actually. No other coin offers this type of integration either. Allowing a core boolberry team member to operate it means complaints about scams, faulty pooling payouts etc can easily be addressed and failure to fix a problem or comply will mean the majority of every day people will not be served automagically from the boolberry master pool.